@SonicRefs
I want to go through your response and ask you some direct questions, because a few things still don't add up. You say the account was closed before you were contacted. Let's go through exactly what happened and when.
On February 5 the account was temporarily restricted. Santhosh contacted @onlybcfg the same day. That is not someone reaching out about a closed account. That is someone reaching out about a restricted account on the exact same day the restriction happened.
After being contacted, your worker actively participated in the appeal process. An AI-generated selfie was submitted to Wise as part of that appeal. On February 13 Wise sent an email stating they could not accept the submitted photo and requested a new real photograph with valid documents. On February 17, rather than providing valid new documentation, @onlybcfg told Santhosh to resubmit the same documents that had already been rejected. On February 18 Wise finalized their decision and kept the account closed.
So the sequence is clear. Temporary restriction on February 5, active involvement from your worker throughout the appeal process, permanent closure on February 18 after a failed appeal that your worker directly participated in. At what point exactly was the account already fully closed before you were contacted?
Regarding the sales page, this point is acknowledged on our end. It is possible the page was not live at the time of this specific sale and we will not hold you accountable for content that may not have existed then. That point is dropped.
You say you only explained what IBAN was. The group chat shows @onlybcfg responding "You can receive money" and "Correct" to a direct question about whether funds sent to that account would appear in the Wise balance. That is not a definition. That is a confirmation. Can you clarify what exactly was being confirmed there?
You say the buyer should have known the risks. The buyer did not know that sending from his own name to an account under a different identity would flag the transaction. You operate this type of service regularly. Did you at any point warn him that this specific action could cause a restriction?
You say the client vouched. He did, at delivery on January 20, before using the account for anything. The account was then restricted on February 5 during the first actual use. Do you consider a vouch given before any real usage a permanent sign-off on everything that follows?
You say this was not a reverification. Your own message before payment reads "we can reverify as many times u need." When Wise requested new documentation your worker did attempt to respond. He submitted a selfie for the appeal. However Wise rejected it because the image contained a physical impossibility that indicated it was AI-generated. When Wise then asked for a new valid photograph, @onlybcfg told Santhosh to resubmit the exact same documents that had already been rejected. Shortly after he stopped responding entirely. It is also worth noting that back on January 20, the same day the account was delivered, @onlybcfg stated in the group chat: "I use real human drops to pass verifications. I dont use uploaded documents or fullz so I cant do that. I dont have images of the ids or docs." So the worker attempted to help but was working with no valid documents from the very beginning. How does that not constitute a failure to honor your own guarantee?
Waiting for your response on each of these before any further action is taken.
I want to go through your response and ask you some direct questions, because a few things still don't add up. You say the account was closed before you were contacted. Let's go through exactly what happened and when.
On February 5 the account was temporarily restricted. Santhosh contacted @onlybcfg the same day. That is not someone reaching out about a closed account. That is someone reaching out about a restricted account on the exact same day the restriction happened.
After being contacted, your worker actively participated in the appeal process. An AI-generated selfie was submitted to Wise as part of that appeal. On February 13 Wise sent an email stating they could not accept the submitted photo and requested a new real photograph with valid documents. On February 17, rather than providing valid new documentation, @onlybcfg told Santhosh to resubmit the same documents that had already been rejected. On February 18 Wise finalized their decision and kept the account closed.
So the sequence is clear. Temporary restriction on February 5, active involvement from your worker throughout the appeal process, permanent closure on February 18 after a failed appeal that your worker directly participated in. At what point exactly was the account already fully closed before you were contacted?
Regarding the sales page, this point is acknowledged on our end. It is possible the page was not live at the time of this specific sale and we will not hold you accountable for content that may not have existed then. That point is dropped.
You say you only explained what IBAN was. The group chat shows @onlybcfg responding "You can receive money" and "Correct" to a direct question about whether funds sent to that account would appear in the Wise balance. That is not a definition. That is a confirmation. Can you clarify what exactly was being confirmed there?
You say the buyer should have known the risks. The buyer did not know that sending from his own name to an account under a different identity would flag the transaction. You operate this type of service regularly. Did you at any point warn him that this specific action could cause a restriction?
You say the client vouched. He did, at delivery on January 20, before using the account for anything. The account was then restricted on February 5 during the first actual use. Do you consider a vouch given before any real usage a permanent sign-off on everything that follows?
You say this was not a reverification. Your own message before payment reads "we can reverify as many times u need." When Wise requested new documentation your worker did attempt to respond. He submitted a selfie for the appeal. However Wise rejected it because the image contained a physical impossibility that indicated it was AI-generated. When Wise then asked for a new valid photograph, @onlybcfg told Santhosh to resubmit the exact same documents that had already been rejected. Shortly after he stopped responding entirely. It is also worth noting that back on January 20, the same day the account was delivered, @onlybcfg stated in the group chat: "I use real human drops to pass verifications. I dont use uploaded documents or fullz so I cant do that. I dont have images of the ids or docs." So the worker attempted to help but was working with no valid documents from the very beginning. How does that not constitute a failure to honor your own guarantee?
Waiting for your response on each of these before any further action is taken.